|
Advanced Search Options
Indian Laws - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 587 Records
-
2012 (12) TMI 1244
... ...
... ... ..... these contemnors and not to punish them with fine or imprisonment. They should be more careful in discharge of their functions and duties in accordance with the judgment of this Court and we further direct them to ensure circulation of this judgment as well as the judgment of Priya Gupta's case to all the Directors, Health Services of the respective States, Deans of the Universities holding the selection/examination or admission process for MBBS/BDS courses as well as to the Dean of all the colleges. 33. In result of the above discussion, contemnor Dr. S.L. Adile, Amrita Banerjee, Dr. Sanjivani Wanjari, Dr. P.D. Agrawal and Mr. Padmakar Sasane are hereby punished and awarded the sentence of fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. The fine should be deposited within four weeks from today. In the event of default, they shall be liable to undergo civil imprisonment for a period of two weeks. The notice of contempt against them is discharged, however, subject to the observations aforemade.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1243
... ...
... ... ..... the finding on the existence of the partnership firm, it is difficult to grant the prayer on the suit properties. In the circumstances, we reject the plea of the first respondent seeking leave of the Court for withdrawal of the suit. We, however, make it clear that with the finding on the existence of the partnership, the consequences flowing therefrom is a totally different relief, on which no prayer was sought. In the light of the view that we have taken, the M.P. No. 4 of 2012, filed for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, stands dismissed. As far as the issue of dissolution is concerned, we hold that the plaintiff has not proved his case as regards the purchase of the property as available for any division and the prayer in the suit for partition itself is misconceived. Consequently, we allow the appeal in part and set aside the judgment to the extent stated above. No costs. Connected M.P. Nos. 1 to 3 of 2012 stand closed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1241
... ...
... ... ..... the deceased and the co-accused cannot be said to be limited to that of an employer and employee relationship as can be gathered from the medical record and the statement of the doctor. 37. Taking into consideration the parameters to be kept in mind while considering an application at the time of grant of bail, I find that the nature of allegations against the petitioner are serious as a young life has been lost on inability to bear the harassment at the hands of petitioner and her co-accused. The petitioner may be an employee of MDLR but from the record, it can be gathered that she ensured that the deceased remain in MDLR Company. 38. Having considered the submissions made and the material on record, I feel that it is not a case of extending the benefit of bail to the petitioner. Application is dismissed. Any observations made hereinabove for the purpose of dealing with the contentions of the parties shall not prejudice to the case of either party at any stage of the trial.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1235
... ...
... ... ..... the effect that they do not want to lead evidence on preliminary issue. The Apex Court concluded that in order to decide the preliminary issue of limitation, evidence is required to be led. So far as the present case is concerned, no such prusis is filed by the parties. It is settled position of law that parties are allowed to lead evidence in support of their contention, while deciding the preliminary issue. In these circumstances, ratio of the Apex Court decision cited above is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. By the impugned order, the preliminary issue about maintainability of the suit is framed. No prejudice will be caused to the Petitioner inasmuch as this issue will have to be decided after granting an opportunity to both the sides. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, writ petition is dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1234
... ...
... ... ..... ute, difference or misunderstanding between the parties or on account of delay or omission to make payments and the clause terminates with the phrase ‘in any other respect whatsoever’. 18. The rule of ejusdem generis guides us that where two or more words or phrases which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together, a noscitur a sociis, they are to be understood to mean in their cognate sense and take colour from each other but only if there is a distinct genus or a category. Where this is lacking i.e. unless there is a category, the rule cannot apply. 19. Thus, the two clauses in the instant case compel us to hold that neither there is a conflict in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Harish Chandra’s case (supra) and Jai Prakash Associates' case (supra) and that the law declared in Jai Prakash Associates' case (supra) governs the instant contract. 20. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but without there being any order as to costs.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1233
... ...
... ... ..... Order XXXVIII Rule 5 as a leverage for coercing the defendant to settle the suit claim should be discouraged. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the court below, without looking into the schedule of properties to be attached in the event of failure by the revision petitioner to furnish security, erred in ordering attachment as the order of attachment will amount to closing down its business and that is not the object of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the order passed by the court below dated 30.11.2012 ordering attachment of the schedule of properties is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court below and the court below is directed to give opportunity to the revision petitioner to file counter to the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff and thereafter, the court below is directed to pass appropriate orders on merits. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1229
... ...
... ... ..... hall remain present before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If he wants to remain absent, then he shall take prior permission of the court and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, he shall immediately give intimation to the appropriate court and also to the Superintendent, CBI and request to the court that he may be permitted to be present through the counsel. c. He will not dispute his identity as the accused in the case. d. He shall surrender his passport, if any (if not already surrendered), and in case, he is not a holder of the same, he shall swear to that effect on an affidavit. If he has already surrendered the passport before the Ld. Special Judge, CBI, that fact should also be supported by an affidavit. e. This Court gives liberty to the CBI to make an appropriate application for modification/recalling this order, if for any reason, the petitioner violates any of the conditions imposed by this Court. Disposed of accordingly.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1226
... ...
... ... ..... many cases where the High Courts, after recording the non-challenge to the conviction, have proceeded to dwell upon the proportionality of the quantum of sentence. We may clearly state that the same being impermissible in law should not be taken resort to. It should be borne in mind that a convict who has been imposed substantive sentence is deprived of his liberty, the stem of life that should not ordinarily be stenosed, and hence, it is the duty of the Court to see that the cause of justice is subserved with serenity in accordance with the established principles of law. 22. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order passed by the High Court are set aside and the appeal is remitted to the High Court to be decided on merits in accordance with law. As the Appellants were on bail during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and are presently in custody, they shall be released on bail on the said terms subject to the final decision in the appeal.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1221
... ...
... ... ..... in respect of the same transaction and such disclosure should be made on a sworn affidavit which should accompany the complaint and if it is found that such multiple complaints have been filed, orders for transfer of the complaint to the first Court should be given by the High Court by imposing heavy costs. 39. In the present Cases, both the lower Courts have dismissed the complaints and acquitted the accused. In the case of "Khedu Mohan" (supra), the Apex Court has held that if on the evidence on record, two views are possible and one view is adopted by the trial Court, there is no scope for interference by the High Court against that order even if the High Court is inclined to accept the other view. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the learned Magistrates of Ponda and Panaji Courts are in accordance with the settled principles of law and no interference is warranted. In the result, I pass the following ORDER All the above criminal appeals are dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1220
... ...
... ... ..... Court for disbelieving the Identification Parade, this Court does not see reasons to reverse the findings of the Sessions Court on this point. 17. To show that the boy was found in the custody of the accused persons and the boy was got released from the clutches of the accused persons from the Farm House of Mutthagi village, Bijapur District, the witnesses, relied upon by the prosecution have not supported the prosecution. When the trial Court has considered the entire evidence led by the prosecution after properly appreciating the evidence and when the trial Court has come to the conclusion that, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, it is difficult for the Appellate Court to reverse the findings against the judgment of the acquittal. We do not see any valid reasons to reverse the findings of the Sessions Court. Accordingly, we answer the point formulated by us against the State. 18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1219
Quashing of order by HC - Entitlement for Profit of the Hotel business and its Ownership - False and fabricated Documents - In this case the dispute is essentially about the profit of the hotel business and its ownership.it was also alleged by the respondent, that false and fabricated documents was used by appellant suit claiming tenancy of the shop.
HELD THAT:- While exercising its jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court. Therefore, The High Court has quashed the complaint as it discloses civil dispute and same has been filed by the Appellant making similar grievance and is pending.
The entire proceedings of Criminal Case including false and fabricated documents are also quashed and set aside. This order will however have no effect on the pending civil suit between the parties. Needless to say that the court, seized of the said suit, shall decide it independently and in accordance with law and the order passed by the Uttarakhand High Court is also set aside.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1213
... ...
... ... ..... by the respondent/defendant in that case by way of an interim application, was well founded or not; and the Court ultimately disagreed with the defendant on this aspect of the matter. But there is nothing to suggest that having decided that Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act would not operate as a bar to the institution of the suit; it was also decided that the matter was not controlled by Article 74 of the Limitation Act 1963; or that Article 74 had no application whatsoever to the case as being contended by counsel for the appellant at the bar. 15. Except for a general submission, which is repeated many times, that the period of limitation in such a case is three years; Counsel for the appellant is unable to show any other provision of the Limitation Act, which may apply to the matter instead of Article 74 thereof. 16. In that view of the matter, there appears to be no infirmity in the impugned order, and I do not find any merit in this appeal. 17. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1205
... ...
... ... ..... d Gupta (supra). Thus, the revisional court also committed a manifest error by placing reliance on the judgment in the case' of Raisa Sultana Begam (supra) which already stood overruled by the Full Bench in the case of Sunni Central Board (supra). In the aforesaid context and keeping in view the reasons recorded hereinabove, the orders of the trial court and that of the revisional court cannot be sustained. The orders dated 18.8.2012 and 28.9.2012 passed by the courts below are hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The trial court is now directed to first proceed to apply its mind to the application No. 30A-1 coupled with the application No. 32C-2 simultaneously alongwith the other affidavits and objections in relation thereto on record and then proceed to pass an order in the light of the observations made hereinabove after giving full opportunity to the contesting parties within 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1188
... ...
... ... ..... ovide such 'head of expenditure', being part of the High Court budget of the respective High Courts for reimbursement of medical bills of the former Judges. In other words, the payment would be directly made by the High Court to the former Judges and it, in turn, would be reimbursed by the State Government. h) All the former Judges of the High Courts would be entitled to receive medical facilities from the hospitals so empanelled by the Central or the State Governments, as the case may be. i) Till appropriate rules are framed by the appropriate authority, these directions shall remain in force and shall be abided by the executive. 42. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. However, there shall be no orders as to costs. ORDER 43. Since there has been a difference of opinion between us in these Civil Appeals, the Registry will place these Civil Appeals before My Lord the Chief Justice of India to constitute a larger Bench to hear and decide these Civil Appeals.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1180
... ...
... ... ..... tate, particularly with reference to the provisions of Article 5(e)(i) and Explanation (ii) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, we set aside the order of the Division Bench impugned in these appeals and remit the same to the High Court for fresh consideration. We request the High Court to restore W.A. Nos. 1023, 1324 and 1325 on its file and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to all the parties including the newly impleaded respondent Nos. 4-32 herein as well as the connected writ petitions pending before the High Court, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Once again, we make it clear that except adverting to the stand of the State, we have not expressed our views on any of the claims and it is for the Division Bench of the High Court to consider their respective claims in accordance with law as observed supra. 10) The appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1177
... ...
... ... ..... Special Metropolitan Magistrate dated 5th January 2010. 4. Reading the complaint as a whole, the cheques were issued to the Complainant at Delhi. The transaction has taken place at Delhi. Even the Accused has the business transaction at Delhi. The cheques were drawn on Federal Bank, New Delhi, presented to the Bank at New Delhi. It was returned unpaid by the drawee Bank at New Delhi. Only issuance of demand notice through the Counsel at Mumbai could be said to be one of the transaction taken place at Mumbai. The order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 5th January 2010 passed below Exhibit 16, does not call for interference as the legal position is well indicated in the matter of National Small Industries Corporation v/s. Hermeet Singh Paintal & Anr. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 330 and in the matter of Mrs. Preetha S. Babu v/s. Voltas Ltd. & Anr. (2010) All MR (Cri) 1025, decided by the Division Bench of this Court. Both Petitions allowed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.)
-
2012 (12) TMI 1173
... ...
... ... ..... 994 (1) SCC 243, the Supreme Court observed that when the court directs payment of damages or compensation against State, the ultimate sufferer is the common man. It is the tax payers' money, which is paid for action of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law. We are inclined to keep this reality in our mind also. Therefore, we make it clear that it will be open to the Government to recover the amount, which is directed to be paid immediately by the first respondent, from respondents 5 to 7, after due enquiry and investigation. Considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that an award of compensation of ₹ 50,000/-, the relief which is prayed for, is just and proper to meet the ends of justice. We direct the first respondent to pay a compensation of ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the petitioner within one month from the date of the judgment. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1172
... ...
... ... ..... s the approval of the banks and financial institutions, the same may cause irreparable injury not only to the appellant Company but also to other creditors, workers and others associated with the business of the appellant company. 7. We accordingly modify the interim order dated 13th December, 2012 by permitting the appellant Company to execute the Master Restructuring Agreement under the CDR process aforesaid and on the terms as disclosed in the memorandum of appeal, though with a clarification that the additional/new encumbrances created by the appellant Company under the CDR process shall be without prejudice to the rights of the respondent and subject to further orders that may be passed by the learned Company Judge. On request of the senior counsel for the respondent it is further ordered that the parties to the agreement shall not claim any equities. In view of the above, the appeal stands disposed of. A copy of the order be given dasti under signature of court master.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1170
Market Price of the suit property - Execution of sale Deed - Decree for Specific Performance - Bar of limitation - The plaintiffs have invoked the provisions of Section 15 (5) of the Limitation Act, 1963 to claim the benefit of the exclusion of the period during which the defendant was absent from India. There can, indeed, be no doubt that if the plaintiff is entitled to exclude the period of such absence the bar of limitation will not apply to the present suit.
Whether Decree for Specific performance should be granted at the belated time of agreement. HELD THAT:- The long efflux of time (over 40 years) that has occurred and the galloping value of real estate in the meantime are the twin inhibiting factors in this regard. The same have to be balanced with the fact that the plaintiffs are in no way responsible for the delay that has occurred and their keen participation in the proceedings till date show the live interest on the part of the plaintiffs to have the agreement enforced in law. Therefore, to direct specific performance of an agreement and that too after elapse of a long period of time, undoubtedly, has to be exercised on sound, reasonable, rational and acceptable principles. The parameters for the exercise of discretion vested by Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 cannot be entrapped within any precise expression of language and the contours thereof will always depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It must be emphasized that efflux of time and escalation of price of property, by itself, cannot be a valid ground to deny the relief of specific performance. After consideration to all relevant aspects of the case for the ends of justice would require this court to intervene and set aside the findings and conclusions recorded by the High Court and to decree the suit of the plaintiffs for specific performance of the agreement. further sale deed that will now have to be executed by the defendants in favor of the plaintiffs will be for the market price of the suit property as on the date of the present order. As no material, whatsoever is available to enable us to make a correct assessment of the market value of the suit property as on date, Apex court request the learned trial judge of the High Court of Delhi to undertake the said exercise with such expedition as may be possible in the prevailing facts and circumstance.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1169
... ...
... ... ..... to Section 53 and Sections 53A and 311A were inserted into the Code. Voice sample was not included either in the Explanation to Section 53 or Section 311A. 93. Should the Court still insist that voice sample is included in the definition of "measurements" under the Identification of Prisoners Act and in the Explanation to Section 53 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? I would answer in the negative. 94. In light of the above discussion, I respectfully differ from the judgment proposed by my sister Desai J. I would allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Magistrate and affirmed by the High Court. 95. Let copies of this judgment be sent to the Union Law Minister and the Attorney General and their attention be drawn to the issue involved in the case. 96. In view of the difference of opinion between us, let this case be listed for hearing before a bench of three Judges after obtaining the necessary direction from the Honourable the Chief Justice of India.
........
|
